TxDOT Plan For Downtown And I-45: Analysis And Problem List

[Slick Vik]

Maybe it isn't a race issue, but it is an economic one, to the point where Midtown NIMBYs (which the freeway pre-dated, might I add) are willing to screw over every other part of the areas surrounding downtown (including taking out Clayton Homes), not to mention motorists, to get rid of the Pierce.

Midtown existed before the pierce...

[Slick Vik]

But, is it sensible to trade one psychological barrier for others?

If you ask me I would eliminate 45, 59, and 10 through downtown and there would be no ring around downtown anymore. Through traffic could go via 610.

[IronTiger]

Midtown existed before the pierce...

Not really, as stated in this thread, "Midtown" was the 3rd Ward and only picked up that name post freeways. Besides, that logic is flawed anyway because that's like saying "Afton Oaks existed first, therefore the rail can't go on Richmond." (Not that said argument hasn't been used, but you get the idea)

[Ross]

If you ask me I would eliminate 45, 59, and 10 through downtown and there would be no ring around downtown anymore. Through traffic could go via 610.

 

Then how do people who live in Spring Branch, Memorial, Meyerland, and other areas get downtown to work? Spend an hour on crowded surface streets? I remember those days. They were bad.And that was when Houston was much smaller than it is now.

 

 

[samagon]

I don't have time to debate all your points right now.

However, your foot traffic argument is specious in that St Emmanuel won't be treated as a feeder any more than Chartes is now. In fact, when they rebuild St Emmanuel it will be done so to ADA standards that would increase safety. The speed limits and observed speeds of traffic will be that of all streets within the downtown grid. If the area is capped then more foot traffic will probably mean that lights are less likely to timed in succession as people want to cross. This will reduce speeds and increase safety.

As far as ROW being available for the Pierce, what grass are you referring to? If the grass you're talking about is Buffalo Bayou Park or Sam Houston Park then no thank you.

We don't have enough parks in Houston so let's not go and pave over the ones we do have.

Actually, north of the bayou (where there's park land), 45 is already 5 lanes in each direction. I'm speaking of the area between where pierce elevated curves north off of pierce, and south of the bayou. Take some time looking at a current Google earth view.

Anyway, neither here nor there. I get your point about st Emmanuel being treated more as a surface street. Would be awesome if they built one lane on each side as a true bike lane, that might help things too.

[Slick Vik]

Then how do people who live in Spring Branch, Memorial, Meyerland, and other areas get downtown to work? Spend an hour on crowded surface streets? I remember those days. They were bad.And that was when Houston was much smaller than it is now.

Just take downtown exits from the freeway like the ones that already exist.

Not really, as stated in this thread, "Midtown" was the 3rd Ward and only picked up that name post freeways. Besides, that logic is flawed anyway because that's like saying "Afton Oaks existed first, therefore the rail can't go on Richmond." (Not that said argument hasn't been used, but you get the idea)

There was a neighborhood pre-pierce. That's my point. Midtown or third ward either way same concept. And in general people on the lowest socioeconomic and political rung had freeways shoved down their throats and at that time that was predominantly blacks.

[Ross]

Just take downtown exits from the freeway like the ones that already exist.

 

 

But your post said you wanted the freeways gone. Make up your mind.

 

And, do you really htink that 610 can carry all of the through traffic? The answer is, probably not.

 

[ADCS]

Then how do people who live in Spring Branch, Memorial, Meyerland, and other areas get downtown to work? Spend an hour on crowded surface streets? I remember those days. They were bad.And that was when Houston was much smaller than it is now.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if there were some fixed mode of transportation that went down these spines emanating from downtown, that would not have to worry about incidental traffic.

[Slick Vik]

But your post said you wanted the freeways gone. Make up your mind.

And, do you really htink that 610 can carry all of the through traffic? The answer is, probably not.

I said the parts that ring around downtown. Ideally yes I'd want all freeways within 610 gone but I'm being reasonable.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were some fixed mode of transportation that went down these spines emanating from downtown, that would not have to worry about incidental traffic.

What a crazy thought

[JJxvi]

Midtown and 3rd ward aren't the same no matter how many times people on this thread say it. Midtown includes portions of both 3rd and 4th ward, and most of the original heavily developed areas are in 4th ward west of the dividing line which is Main.

[samagon]

Yeah so our math isn't adding up.

 

The only 3rd ward streets that connect to Midtown currently but will not in this plan are :

 

Cleburne and Blodgett

 

My assumptions:

1.) The Boundaries of 3rd ward are I45 south, 288, Spur 5, and Brays Bayou

2.) The only streets that connect 3rd ward to midtown are: Pierce, McGowen, Tuam, Elgin, Alabama, Cleburn, Wheeler,and Blodgett (barely)

 

I count 2.

 

Where do you get 7?

 

First:

Call the areas on each side of 59 between the 527 spur and 288 whatever you want, 3rd ward, midtown, museum district, I don't care, you can call one side Camelot and the other Pandora for all the good it will do to change the facts.

 

Second:

Don't think of it as numbers, because whether it's 7, 6 or 2, these are insignificant numbers in and of themselves. Compare the numbers against what is there now.

 

Currently, from the 527 spur to 288 there are 11 (not including Barbee or Crawford): Almeda, Cleburne, La Branch, Eagle, Austin, Caroline, Wheeler, San Jacinto, Fannin, Main, Blodgett.

 

In the new plan there are 6 cross streets across the same stretch of freeway: Almeda, La Branch, Wheeler, San Jacinto, Fannin, Main.

 

You're reducing by 5 in this stretch (not including one block streets), from 11. That's a 45% reduction in connectivity.

 

Yes, from an actual traveling standpoint, you're talking 1, 2, maybe 3 minutes, not a big deal. 

 

From a psychological standpoint though, you're reducing access between two areas that already had reduced access to each other. It's like a border between countries where you put in bigger fences to keep people on their respective sides. Yes, it does feel like that.

 

To sum up:

Is this single reason, enough reason to stop the whole of phase 3? No.

Is it worth additional scrutinizing from the plan administrators to come up with clever solutions? Yes.

Might the clever solution increase costs? Probably, and finding a way to keep connectivity between these two areas would be worth the cost.

[samagon]

Here's a question about the east side at the convention center:

 

Why are there freeway crossings at Lamar, Mc Kinney, and Walker?

 

Could they keep the Polk crossing and get rid of the Mc Kinney and Walker crossings?

 

Polk offers more connectivity to downtown than Lamar, Mc Kinney, or Walker (considering they end at the convention center anyway). Keeping the Lamar crossing makes sense cause you can use it as a U-turn to get from St Emanuel to Hamilton.

 

Polk is more of a major street in the east end than any of those other streets, and finding a way to maintain access to downtown direct on that street should be something considered, the potential extra cost associated with making this work could be saved by removing the crossings for those other streets (and potentially increasing uninterrupted greenspace on top of the freeway).

[JJxvi]

The reason appears to be that the I45 mainlanes to and from the golf freeway will be flying over and down into the trench crossing near ground level around polk.  My guess is that if there is an alternative, it would be sinking them down sooner which means its either Polk or Leeland/Bell but not both.

[Houston19514]

First:

Call the areas on each side of 59 between the 527 spur and 288 whatever you want, 3rd ward, midtown, museum district, I don't care, you can call one side Camelot and the other Pandora for all the good it will do to change the facts.

 

Second:

Don't think of it as numbers, because whether it's 7, 6 or 2, these are insignificant numbers in and of themselves. Compare the numbers against what is there now.

 

Currently, from the 527 spur to 288 there are 11 (not including Barbee or Crawford): Almeda, Cleburne, La Branch, Eagle, Austin, Caroline, Wheeler, San Jacinto, Fannin, Main, Blodgett.

 

In the new plan there are 6 cross streets across the same stretch of freeway: Almeda, La Branch, Wheeler, San Jacinto, Fannin, Main.

 

You're reducing by 5 in this stretch (not including one block streets), from 11. That's a 45% reduction in connectivity.

 

Yes, from an actual traveling standpoint, you're talking 1, 2, maybe 3 minutes, not a big deal. 

 

From a psychological standpoint though, you're reducing access between two areas that already had reduced access to each other. It's like a border between countries where you put in bigger fences to keep people on their respective sides. Yes, it does feel like that.

 

To sum up:

Is this single reason, enough reason to stop the whole of phase 3? No.

Is it worth additional scrutinizing from the plan administrators to come up with clever solutions? Yes.

Might the clever solution increase costs? Probably, and finding a way to keep connectivity between these two areas would be worth the cost.

 

Do you not think the neighborhood will get any benefit from the freeway being trenched through this stretch?  I would happily trade a few minor street crossings for a depressed freeway.

 

[cspwal]

It depends on how the freeway is trenched.  59 right before the spur looks lovely.  288 is a scar in the earth.

[MaxConcrete]

Here's a question about the east side at the convention center:

 

Why are there freeway crossings at Lamar, Mc Kinney, and Walker?

 

Could they keep the Polk crossing and get rid of the Mc Kinney and Walker crossings?

 

Polk offers more connectivity to downtown than Lamar, Mc Kinney, or Walker (considering they end at the convention center anyway). Keeping the Lamar crossing makes sense cause you can use it as a U-turn to get from St Emanuel to Hamilton.

 

Polk is more of a major street in the east end than any of those other streets, and finding a way to maintain access to downtown direct on that street should be something considered, the potential extra cost associated with making this work could be saved by removing the crossings for those other streets (and potentially increasing uninterrupted greenspace on top of the freeway).

 

Good observation, Sangamon. If and when the potential deck park is built, I think one or more of Lamar, McKinney and Walker will be closed to traffic, making the Polk crossing even more important.

 

I think I will add that to my list. JJxvi's observation about the I-45 ramps being above trench level at that point is probably the reason for the lack of the Polk crossing, but I think the Polk bridge could be raised somewhat at the middle to potentially accommodate the ramps.

[Houston19514]

It depends on how the freeway is trenched.  59 right before the spur looks lovely.  288 is a scar in the earth.

 

Still less of a scar than it would be if it was elevated. 

[Slick Vik]

My overall problem with the plan is where capacity is reduced in one area it's just shifted somewhere else. Why not just remove the pierce and not add capacity to 59? Force people to shift their driving habits, and perhaps mobility habits as a whole. That would be a real way to get people to stop going through the city center in the first place.

[MaxConcrete]

I prepared this drawing for the removal of the Polk Street overpass

 

http://houstonfreeways.com/images/plan-analysis/us59-polk-annotated.jpg

 

However, I am still considering how serious this issue is, and if it warrants inclusion in the list I plan to submit as a public comment.

 

The question is: how much potential exists for future development east along Polk that will generate traffic? If traffic generation is low, then most people can go south to Leland, and for some people in the north it will be easier to go to Capitol (but made more difficult by the stadium). I just don't see a substantial traffic demand on Polk, so the removal should be tolerable.

[cspwal]

Polk allows for direct entrance to drop off/pick up people from Toyota center, as well as vehicular access to the Dallas street retail corridor.  I think it is a vital link, that severing would make the freeway more of a barrier than it already is

[Houston19514]

I prepared this drawing for the removal of the Polk Street overpass

 

http://houstonfreeways.com/images/plan-analysis/us59-polk-annotated.jpg

 

However, I am still considering how serious this issue is, and if it warrants inclusion in the list I plan to submit as a public comment.

 

The question is: how much potential exists for future development east along Polk that will generate traffic? If traffic generation is low, then most people can go south to Leland, and for some people in the north it will be easier to go to Capitol (but made more difficult by the stadium). I just don't see a substantial traffic demand on Polk, so the removal should be tolerable.

 

 

Polk allows for direct entrance to drop off/pick up people from Toyota center, as well as vehicular access to the Dallas street retail corridor.  I think it is a vital link, that severing would make the freeway more of a barrier than it already is

 

Agreed.  I think it's a pretty vital link, both for vehicles and pedestrians.  The Convention District Master Plan made a pretty big point of maintaining and improving the Polk Street linkage.

[cspwal]

Potentially stupid question, but would it be possible to trench the 59/45/288 interchange? And cover the whole thing up with a deck and sell the land?

[ADCS]

Potentially stupid question, but would it be possible to trench the 59/45/288 interchange? And cover the whole thing up with a deck and sell the land?

 

Yes, but it would probably cost $3 billion+ alone to do this.

[Nate99]

Does TxDOT have an in-house psychologist, or are they going to have to hire some politician's wife's firm to sort out the optimal number of cross streets?

 

This will impact a million people every day, a lot of people are going to be very pissed off no matter how you slice it up. That condition is no different than what we have today.  

[Ross]

My overall problem with the plan is where capacity is reduced in one area it's just shifted somewhere else. Why not just remove the pierce and not add capacity to 59? Force people to shift their driving habits, and perhaps mobility habits as a whole. That would be a real way to get people to stop going through the city center in the first place.

 

I live in Timbergrove, and my dentist is near Telephone and 45. Just how am I supposed to get there without going through Downtown? I have relatives in Baytown, how do I get there without going through the middle of town? I often do some outdoor activities near Manvel. How do I get there without going through Downtown? I suppose you think it's OK to make poeple go miles out of the way, just to satisfy your bizarre ideas on what a city should look like.

 

[ADCS]

I live in Timbergrove, and my dentist is near Telephone and 45. Just how am I supposed to get there without going through Downtown? I have relatives in Baytown, how do I get there without going through the middle of town? I often do some outdoor activities near Manvel. How do I get there without going through Downtown? I suppose you think it's OK to make poeple go miles out of the way, just to satisfy your bizarre ideas on what a city should look like.

 

 

1. Surface streets (e.g. Shepherd to Westheimer to Elgin)

2. 610 N to 10 E

3. 610 W and S to 288 S

 

FWIW, routes 2 and 3 are faster than going via Downtown, and the first is indicative of the deficiencies in our street planning system - there isn't enough arterial capacity to take over the load when the freeways fail.

[Nate99]

In every city I've ever been in, there's never enough capacity, even those with a myriad of mas transit options. One would hope that a project of this magnitude might end up in a place where everyone can travel freely without traffic delays, but I'm doubtful that it would last very long if it did.

 

My theory is that if you have a city big enough to have massive traffic, the massive traffic is a major factor on keeping it from getting even larger; it just becomes a logistical nightmare to deal with beyond a certain point. Expand the options however you like (wider freeways, rail, density, whatever) and it will grow some more, right up to the point where the logistics and/or price become confining once again and people (commuters, businesses, etc.) quit being able to deal with it. More money always pushes that tipping point further, but you have to have something that drives the values to NYC (London, San Francisco, etc.) levels before you justify the "everything and the kitchen sink" traffic management approach.

 

Alternatively, you can be like Vancouver, shut down your freeways and have well connected Chinese billionaires expatriate all of their cash in t your city's real estate to keep your economy bumping. Anyone that wants to get across town can just wait.

[Ross]

1. Surface streets (e.g. Shepherd to Westheimer to Elgin)

2. 610 N to 10 E

3. 610 W and S to 288 S

FWIW, routes 2 and 3 are faster than going via Downtown, and the first is indicative of the deficiencies in our street planning system - there isn't enough arterial capacity to take over the load when the freeways fail.

Routes 2 and 3 are far slower. I've dne both. They are longer by several miles, and don't move as well as the the through town routes. Using surface streets fir number 1 turns a 10-15 minute trip into an hour long slog. And I generally take surface streets when possible.

[ADCS]

Routes 2 and 3 are far slower. I've dne both. They are longer by several miles, and don't move as well as the the through town routes. Using surface streets fir number 1 turns a 10-15 minute trip into an hour long slog. And I generally take surface streets when possible.

 

What's the nearest cross streets to where you're coming from? Google Maps disagrees with you for 2 and 3 if you're coming from the center of Timbergrove (Ella/18th/TC Jester)

[IronTiger]

One of the biggest problems I see is the demolition of Clayton Homes, because first off, that property was supposedly renovated recently, and that's a substantial amount of people that have to be relocated. Already the Houston housing authority is a bit short on public housing, and public housing tends to be one of the biggest NIMBYs there is...probably more than freeways. (see the Pinemont P&R discussions for more)